AHC: Have Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia survive and thrive to the present

katchen

Banned
When I was living in Australia, I had a conversation with a South African refugee. We came to the conclusion that if South Africa had given the "bantustans", particularly Transkei, independence in 1965( (the same time the British gave Lesotho independence), Henrik Veroerd's Grand Apartheid would have been a done deal--and the bantusan states would have been internationally recognized, the same as all the other new nations in Africa. Then the only isuse would have been the Coloreds and Asians voting.
But the Nationalist Whites in South Africa insisted on :baaskaap" (lit. bosship) apartheid in which dependency and oppresive white supremacy continued, and when South Africa finally did try to implement Grand Apartheid, it was too little too late and the international community was not going to tolerate it.
Remember.Australia's granting of independence to Papua New Guinea (and thereby denial of Australian citizenship to Papula New Guineans) was as much Grand Apartheid as what South Africa did. The Aussies never staged a plebiscite and asked the Papua New Guineans if they wanted independence or would rather have Australian statehood. But the Aussies got away with it.
 
When I was living in Australia, I had a conversation with a South African refugee. We came to the conclusion that if South Africa had given the "bantustans", particularly Transkei, independence in 1965( (the same time the British gave Lesotho independence), Henrik Veroerd's Grand Apartheid would have been a done deal--and the bantusan states would have been internationally recognized, the same as all the other new nations in Africa. Then the only isuse would have been the Coloreds and Asians voting.
But the Nationalist Whites in South Africa insisted on :baaskaap" (lit. bosship) apartheid in which dependency and oppresive white supremacy continued, and when South Africa finally did try to implement Grand Apartheid, it was too little too late and the international community was not going to tolerate it.
Remember.Australia's granting of independence to Papua New Guinea (and thereby denial of Australian citizenship to Papula New Guineans) was as much Grand Apartheid as what South Africa did. The Aussies never staged a plebiscite and asked the Papua New Guineans if they wanted independence or would rather have Australian statehood. But the Aussies got away with it.

But Papuans New Guineans weren't people who had been pushed off their land and made to go live in shitholes.

You can't compare bantustands and Apartheid homelands.

Why was this South African a 'refugee'?
 
But Papuans New Guineans weren't people who had been pushed off their land and made to go live in shitholes.

You can't compare bantustands and Apartheid homelands.

Why was this South African a 'refugee'?

Agreed.

I disagree with the main point as well - 1965 would be too late, needs to be well and truly before African decolonisation starts - I would think even before 1957 (Ghana self rule). If just to stop the issue becoming an international and commonwealth issue, because it will for any newly independent nation in Africa or Asia.

I am not convinced the OTL endpoint of Grand Apartheid was so clear in the 1940s or 50s. If the designers had known how decolonisation would unfold, how the cold war would develop etc, then I am sure they would have gone straight to the OTL endpoint. Given they didn't, de jure dependent states that have no viability make a lot of sense. If they did have a reasonable understanding, then they would create de jure independent states with some hope of viability.
 
Genocide Watch is a load of crap.

And Rhodesia does not exist anymore, it's called Zimbabwe now.
It may be, but I think you should still take their view into account.
Rhodesia is a prettier name and I thought my use of it was relevant in this situation.
And hell, South Africa is going to shiet, it's history repeating itself.
 
It may be, but I think you should still take their view into account.
And Rhodesia is a prettier name and I thought my use of it was relevant in this situation.
And hell, South Africa is going to shiet, it's history repeating itself.

Um, it really isn't.

You can't compare Zim and SA.

South Africa is a far, far better place today than it was 20 years ago.
 
Um, it really isn't.

You can't compare Zim and SA.

South Africa is a far, far better place today than it was 20 years ago.

Why? They're quite good for comparison. And you can already see the signs of bad things on the horizon, there's several Mugabe-wannabes who have a decent shot at leadership.
Sure, South Africa may have growth in their GDP, but their HDI ironically declined by the fall of Apartheid and income discrepancy is on the rise and will surely continue in their negative pattern as ANC is growing even more stagnant and ineffective.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2009/974/ifdp974.htm

Honduras_HDI.gif


The fall of Apartheid weren't some magical wonder-cure to everything, in some aspects, alot of people have it worse now, not just the whites.
I'm in no way defending Apartheid, rather pointing out the annoying facts the ideolically blinded tend to ignore.
There's only one Mandela, and when he dies, bang, Zimbabwe v2, atleast, that's my opinion.
I may ofcourse be wrong, and if I am, you have every right to spam me with "I told you so's".

At the end, let me ask you this; If you had a choice, would you rather have Rhodesia, sorry, Zimbabwe, led be a white minority and be reasonably prosperous, or rather have it in todays miserable situation?
 
Why? They're quite good for comparison. And you can already see the signs of bad things on the horizon, there's several Mugabe-wannabes who have a decent shot at leadership.
Sure, South Africa may have growth in their GDP, but their HDI ironically declined by the fall of Apartheid and income discrepancy is on the rise and will surely continue in their negative pattern as ANC is growing even more stagnant and ineffective.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2009/974/ifdp974.htm

Honduras_HDI.gif


The fall of Apartheid weren't some magical wonder-cure to everything, in some aspects, alot of people have it worse now, not just the whites.
I'm in no way defending Apartheid, rather pointing out the annoying facts the ideolically blinded tend to ignore.
There's only one Mandela, and when he dies, bang, Zimbabwe v2, atleast, that's my opinion.
I may ofcourse be wrong, and if I am, you have every right to spam me with "I told you so's".

At the end, let me ask you this; If you had a choice, would you rather have Rhodesia, sorry, Zimbabwe, led be a white minority and be reasonably prosperous, or rather have it in todays miserable situation?

South Africa's Gini coefficient is actually on the decline. It rose until about 2002 but then government grants really kicked in, and has been declining steadily since then.

The main reason why SA's HDI has declined so badly is because of the falling life expectancy, mainly because of Aids. Now that ARVs are widely available life expectancy is once again rising.

Poverty has come down, water and sanitation, and decent housing are also far more widespread than they were under apartheid.

And things are actually pretty good for whites, white incomes have been on the rise since 1994 (as have the incomes of all races).

You say you're pointing out facts. Seems like you need to do some more research there guy.

And why will South Africa become like Zimbabwe when Mandela dies? He isn't God or Superman.

And who are the 'Mugabe-wannabes' that have a chance of leadership within the ANC?

Lastly, you can't ask the Zimbabwe question, it is a zero sum game.

Nobody can rightly say that they would prefer Rhodesia over a majority-led Zimbabwe, but obviously the country a disaster.
 
South Africa's Gini coefficient is actually on the decline. It rose until about 2002 but then government grants really kicked in, and has been declining steadily since then.

The main reason why SA's HDI has declined so badly is because of the falling life expectancy, mainly because of Aids. Now that ARVs are widely available life expectancy is once again rising.

I admit, I may have been alittle rushed in my income discrepancy comment, but they still have the highest gini-coeffecient in the world, and it's been virtually unchanged since yah, the fall of Apartheid (I'm going to get kinda bored using those three words over and over, it's called FoA from now on)

6a01310f54565d970c016306b49d69970d-pi


And yeah, they've been viciously bumfuwcked by aids, but the South African government has also been heavily criticized in it's handling of the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism#In_South_Africa

And still, their HDI is still lower than 19 years ago, and that was before the FoA.

Poverty has come down, water and sanitation, and decent housing are also far more widespread than they were under apartheid.

And things are actually pretty good for whites, white incomes have been on the rise since 1994 (as have the incomes of all races).
.

Poverty is still above 50% and I believe the total numbers of poor (not the percentage) has actually risen, don't quote me on this though.
And rising incomes doesn't really do much when you have the highest income disrepancy in the world.
You also got the 450 000 poor whites, an underclass which was next to non-existant during apartheid and rising crime-rates(unreported and total + more is being targeted against the whites, farm-murders etc), so all in all, I'd say the Whites atleast, in a broad generalization, has it worse now. And their emigration numbers is somewhat of an indicator of this.

You say you're pointing out facts. Seems like you need to do some more research there guy.
I'm half-way advocating a view which is rather unique outside of white-supremacist circles and people actually living in South Africa. I said "awkward facts", and they are intepreted differently by different people and their prejudices. I try to stay away from anecdotal evidence, but hell, I can even use that, as my aunt actually got stabbed when she visited the country and contracted an infection at the hospital and there was no search for the perpetrator, at all.

And why will South Africa become like Zimbabwe when Mandela dies? He isn't God or Superman.
He kinda is though. He's one in a billion, there's no one like him, and there will never be another. And he's not the only factor, although, a huge one.

And who are the 'Mugabe-wannabes' that have a chance of leadership within the ANC?
I was mostly refering to the fine, upstanding gentleman; Julius Malema. And Jacob Zuma has been showing some "tendencies".

Lastly, you can't ask the Zimbabwe question, it is a zero sum game.

Nobody can rightly say that they would prefer Rhodesia over a majority-led Zimbabwe, but obviously the country a disaster.
Why not? And my question was if you would have prefered a decent country with minority rule over todays shitty situation, and it was all hypothetical.


Talking about South Africa makes me depressed and nihilistic, lets just agree to disagree and move on with our lifes.
And again, I'm not supporting the Apartheid, just saying it's fall was not all sunshine and rainbows. And yah, the FoA was long overdue. Having it survive requires something short of a miracle.
 
I admit, I may have been alittle rushed in my income discrepancy comment, but they still have the highest gini-coeffecient in the world, and it's been virtually unchanged since yah, the fall of Apartheid (I'm going to get kinda bored using those three words over and over, it's called FoA from now on)

6a01310f54565d970c016306b49d69970d-pi


And yeah, they've been viciously bumfuwcked by aids, but the South African government has also been heavily criticized in it's handling of the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism#In_South_Africa

OK, we can agree to disagree but because you're mostly wrong I'm going to reply first.

Um, if you actually read the source you provided you would see that it from 2008, when Thabo Mbeki was President. Thabo Mbeki was ousted as President in 2008. Since 2009 when Zuma became President things are much better.

I can find sources if you want.
 
Poverty is still above 50% and I believe the total numbers of poor (not the percentage) has actually risen, don't quote me on this though.
And rising incomes doesn't really do much when you have the highest income disrepancy in the world.
You also got the 450 000 poor whites, an underclass which was next to non-existant during apartheid and rising crime-rates(unreported and total + more is being targeted against the whites, farm-murders etc), so all in all, I'd say the Whites atleast, in a broad generalization, has it worse now. And their emigration numbers is somewhat of an indicator of this.

Poverty is actually under 50%, in 2011 38% of South Africans lived in relative poverty. Since 1996 the numbers of South Africans living in relative poverty has never been more than 50%.

And whites really do not 'in a broad generalisation' have it worse. Do some research.
 
I'm half-way advocating a view which is rather unique outside of white-supremacist circles and people actually living in South Africa. I said "awkward facts", and they are intepreted differently by different people and their prejudices. I try to stay away from anecdotal evidence, but hell, I can even use that, as my aunt actually got stabbed when she visited the country and contracted an infection at the hospital and there was no search for the perpetrator, at all.

OK, your aunt's experience is obviously proof that South Africa is going down the shit tubes. Thanks for sharing the experience of one person and enlightening me.
 
Last edited:
He kinda is though. He's one in a billion, there's no one like him, and there will never be another. And he's not the only factor, although, a huge one.


I was mostly refering to the fine, upstanding gentleman; Julius Malema. And Jacob Zuma has been showing some "tendencies".

What do you think Mandela actually does?

All he does now, is sit at home with a blanket on his knees. He is senile and irrelevant. He has zero influence on South African politics today.

Julius Malema has been expelled from the ANC and is under investigation by the South African Revenue Service.

You must really have your finger on the pulse of South African politics if you didn't know that.

:rolleyes:

And what are Zuma's 'tendencies'?
 
Why not? And my question was if you would have prefered a decent country with minority rule over todays shitty situation, and it was all hypothetical.


Talking about South Africa makes me depressed and nihilistic, lets just agree to disagree and move on with our lifes.
And again, I'm not supporting the Apartheid, just saying it's fall was not all sunshine and rainbows. And yah, the FoA was long overdue. Having it survive requires something short of a miracle.

In that case, no. One cannot say a country where more than 90% of the population was not treated as human beings is better than than the shithole Zimbabwe is today.

I agree that the end of apartheid did not solve South Africa's problems. However, you came into this thread spouting all kinds of nonsense and half-truths and had to correct you.
 
Poverty is actually under 50%, in 2011 38% of South Africans lived in relative poverty. Since 1996 the numbers of South Africans living in relative poverty has never been more than 50%.

I don't know, mind sourcing your information, I was going by this:
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-16-poverty-and-inequality-in-south-africa

And whites really do not 'in a broad generalisation' have it worse. Do some research.
I did, and my conclusion was the opposite of yours. There's a reason Genocide Watch rates them at a 6 yaknow.

OK, your aunt's experience is obviously prrof that South Africa is going down the shit tubes. Thanks for sharing the experience of one person and enlightening me.
I got lost in my own example kinda. Sorry bout that. I'd rather you weren't so sarcastic about it though.

What do you think Mandela actually does?

All he does now, is sit at home with a blanket on his knees. He is senile and irrelevant. He has zero influence on South African politics today.

Julius Malema has been expelled from the ANC and is under investigation by the South African Revenue Service.

You must really have your finger on the pulse of South African politics if you didn't know that.

:rolleyes:

And what are Zuma's 'tendencies'?
He's a symbol. A huge one. You had Ghandi, Luther King and Mandela. Only one is still alive and breathing. What he did for reconciliation was unprecedented and will most likely never be repeated.
And his opinion do matter. Maybe not for you, but he's the hero for most of the populace and will retain influence until he kicks the bucket.

Julius Malema wasn't an isolated incident, and having a leader of the ANC youth wing with genocidial tendencies is kinda a bad sign.

And the tendencies I was refering to in Zuma's case was the "kill the boer" - incident.

In that case, no. One cannot say a country where more than 90% of the population was not treated as human beings is better than than the shithole Zimbabwe is today.
There's more important things than democracy ffs. Like. Not. Dying.
I'll fundamentally disagree with you on this one.

I agree that the end of apartheid did not solve South Africa's problems. However, you came into this thread spouting all kinds of nonsense and half-truths and had to correct you.
Well, facts and statistics may be interpreted in several ways. You may call it nonsense, be my guest, but try to be alittle less close-minded next time someone comes with a differing opinion. And just dismissing Genocide Watch like you do, is a really close-minded thing to do.
 
I don't know, mind sourcing your information, I was going by this:
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-16-poverty-and-inequality-in-south-africa


I did, and my conclusion was the opposite of yours. There's a reason Genocide Watch rates them at a 6 yaknow.


I got lost in my own example kinda. Sorry bout that. I'd rather you weren't so sarcastic about it though.


He's a symbol. A huge one. You had Ghandi, Luther King and Mandela. Only one is still alive and breathing. What he did for reconciliation was unprecedented and will most likely never be repeated.
And his opinion do matter. Maybe not for you, but he's the hero for most of the populace and will retain influence until he kicks the bucket.

Julius Malema wasn't an isolated incident, and having a leader of the ANC youth wing with genocidial tendencies is kinda a bad sign.

And the tendencies I was refering to in Zuma's case was the "kill the boer" - incident.


There's more important things than democracy ffs. Like. Not. Dying.
I'll fundamentally disagree with you on this one.


Well, facts and statistics may be interpreted in several ways. You may call it nonsense, be my guest, but try to be alittle less close-minded next time someone comes with a differing opinion. And just dismissing Genocide Watch like you do, is a really close-minded thing to do.

Info I got re: poverty is from the latest South Africa Survey from the South African Institute of Race Relations.

With regard to Genocide Watch, hardly anyone takes them seriously. And I will use an anecdotal example, but I live in South Africa and really do not feel like I am a member of a threatened minority, to be honest. Genocide Watch is generally used by deluded Afrikaners to prove that there is some kind of government vendetta against them.

I really don't see Mandela's death affecting South Africa's politics.

Sure, Malema was a moron. But the ANC realised this and kicked him out.

With regard to the 'Kill the Boer' song, it is not meant literally and it is a struggle song and important to ANC history.
 
There's more important things than democracy ffs. Like. Not. Dying.
I'll fundamentally disagree with you on this one.


Well, facts and statistics may be interpreted in several ways. You may call it nonsense, be my guest, but try to be alittle less close-minded next time someone comes with a differing opinion. And just dismissing Genocide Watch like you do, is a really close-minded thing to do.

Ask any black Zimbabwean which government they preferred and 90% of them would probably say Mugabe over Smith's. This doesn't necessarily mean they support Mugabe though.
 
Well, facts and statistics may be interpreted in several ways. You may call it nonsense, be my guest, but try to be alittle less close-minded next time someone comes with a differing opinion. And just dismissing Genocide Watch like you do, is a really close-minded thing to do.

Well, the last board member who mentioned that source was a white nationalist nutcase, if that helps you understand why we don't take it seriously.

As for OP's subject: Maybe in a world where the Cold War continues to this day, complete with a US that had its Civil Rights movement go downhill early on (like what happened in statichaos's A World of Laughter, A World of Tears), maybe it could happen.
 
I just want to say that this is a very interesting discussion, it's always valuable to hear opinions on South Africa from people living in South Africa since the end of the Apartheid.
 
Top